Fidelity National Information Services V Sindicato dos Bancários e Financiários de São Paulo, Osasco e Região

Overview

NCP Decision Accepted
Current Status Closed
Date Submitted 02/08/2010
Case Duration Not known
Host Country Brazil  (Adhering Country)
Issue(s) Failure to recognise the trade union; laying off of trade union leaders
Provisions Cited IV.1-a   
Case Description In August 2010, the trade unions Sindicato dos Bancários e Financiários de São Paulo and Osasco e Região CUT-Brazil filed a case at the Brazilian NCP against the US-based Multinational Enterprise Financial Information Services concerning the activtiies of its subsidiary, Fidelity National BPO Brasil. The complaint described Fidelity National BPO Brasil's failure to recognise the union and harassment of trade union leaders.
Developments On 27 February 2015, the NCP accepted the complaint and communicated its decision to the Company, as well as the OECD and the US NCP.

On 9 April, 2015, Fidelity informed the Brazilian NCP that it had closed its subsidiaries in Brazil in April 2011. Fidelity requested that the NCP close the case.

Outcome On 23 July 2015, the NCP closed the case on the grounds that Fidelity was no longer present in Brazil.

Organisations

Lead NCP Brazil NCP : Interministerial Body 

Companies

Multinational Company FIS (Home country: US)
Subsidiary Fidelity BPO Brazil Ltda., (Home country: Brazil)

Complainants

Lead Complainant Sindicato dos Bancários a Financiários de São Paulo, Osasco e Região

TUAC Analysis

Did the NCP publish its initial assessment? status-icon
Did the case involve parallel proceedings? status-icon
Was the existence of parallel proceedings an obstacle to the NCP accepting the case? status-icon
Was the businsess relationship other than that of a subsidiary? status-icon
Was the nature of the business relationship an obstacle to the NCP accepting the case? status-icon
Did the NCP inform other relevant government departments about its acceptance of this case? status-icon
Did the NCP offer mediation or conciliation? status-icon
Did the company accept the offer of mediation or conciliation? status-icon
Did the complainant(s) accept the offer of mediation or conciliation? status-icon
Was mediation or conciliation held? status-icon
Was mediation or conciliation conducted by a professional mediator? status-icon
Did the parties reach agreement? status-icon
If yes, did the NCP publish this agreement following the consent of the parties? status-icon
If mediation was refused or failed did the NCP make an assessment of whether the company had breached the Guidelines? status-icon
Did the NCP conduct in-host country fact finding? status-icon
Did the NCP make recommendations to the company on the future implementation of the Guidelines? status-icon
Did the NCP publish its final statement or report? status-icon
Did the NCP provide for follow-up of the agreement/recommendations? status-icon
Did the NCP inform other relevant government departments about its final statement or report? status-icon
Did the NCP inform public pension funds about its final statement or report? status-icon
Did the NCP apply any consequences in this case? status-icon
Did the NCP follow the indicative timescales set out in the procedural guidance? status-icon
Was there a positive outcome for the workers involved in this case? status-icon
Did the filing of the case under the Guidelines have a positive impact for the workers involved? status-icon
Did the lead NCP play a positive role? status-icon
If different, did the home NCP play a positive role? status-icon

TUAC Assessment

The timescales involved in processing this complaint meant that the Guidelines were of no use in addressing the issues raised.

Implications

Long timescales rendered the Guidelines complaint wholly ineffective in the context of factory closures